The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Vilas Prabhakar Lad v. UIDAI & Ors. [WRIT PETITION NO. 3586 OF 2021 dated July 22, 2025] held that GST authorities must delete the Aadhaar and PAN linked to the Petitioner’s name from the portal as the registration was fraudulently obtained and expressed deep displeasure at the systemic failure across statutory authorities to act upon clear evidence of impersonation and fraud.
Facts:
Vilas Prabhakar Lad (“the Petitioner”) is a small provisional store owner residing in Mumbai.
UIDAI, GST Authorities, Income Tax Department, UTIITSL, Union Bank of India, and others (“the Respondents”) are statutory and regulatory agencies responsible for Aadhaar, PAN, GST registration, and banking compliance.
On December 28, 2019, the Petitioner received a legal notice from a Rajkot-based advocate demanding rent dues of ₹75,000 for a property he never occupied. In reply, the Petitioner denied the allegations and pointed to a possible fraud involving his identity.
On February 14, 2020, another notice under Section 138 of the NI Act was received for dishonour of a cheque of ₹13.83 lakh issued by M/s. Metro International Trading Company. The Petitioner reiterated he had no connection with the said entity. On March 4, 2020, his counsel wrote to Andhra Bank (now Union Bank of India) stating the Petitioner had never opened any account in Gujarat. Union Bank’s response admitted the account was opened using KYC documents bearing the Petitioner’s name but with someone else’s photograph. Union Bank (“the Respondent No.6”) stated that KYC was verified at the time, but photographs are not displayed in their system when PAN or Aadhaar numbers are entered, making facial verification impossible.
On January 29, 2021, the Petitioner wrote to UIDAI and Mumbai GST authorities detailing the fraud, enclosing mismatched Aadhaar copies, and sought cancellation of the fraudulently obtained GST registration. However, the Petitioner was served with an attachment notice in Form GST DRC-01A by the State Tax Department of Gujarat.
Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) (“the Respondent No.1”) responded by stating it cannot issue a new Aadhaar as per the Act, and fraud matters lie outside its jurisdiction.
UTI Infrastructure & Technology Service (“the Respondent No.3”) stated it had a limited role in PAN issuance and followed instructions from CBDT.
The Petitioner contended that the Respondents failed to protect his identity, breached duties under the Aadhaar Act, GST Act, and RBI circulars, and took no action despite years of complaints, making him suffer civil and criminal consequences.
The Respondents contended that their role was limited or that jurisdiction to address the fraud lies elsewhere. Notably, the Income Tax Department failed to appear.
Aggrieved by the misuse of his Aadhaar and PAN leading to unlawful GST registration, criminal proceedings, and property attachment, the Petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Issue:
Whether the inaction of statutory authorities including UIDAI, GST authorities, Income Tax Department, and the concerned bank in response to identity fraud and misuse of Aadhaar and PAN for obtaining GST registration violates their statutory obligations and fundamental rights of the Petitioner?
Held:
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in WRIT PETITION NO. 3586 OF 2021 dated July 22, 2025 held as under:
- Observed that this is a case where all statutory, regulatory, and law enforcement agencies “stood motionless for five years till today when the fraud committed on these authorities should have awoken them and spurred them to move at lightning speed.”
- Noted that, the Aadhaar number cannot be changed or reissued as per the Aadhaar Act; however, the same being known to a third party raises serious concerns of future misuse.
- Further expressed displeasure over non-appearance of Respondent No.5 the Income Tax Department, particularly in a non-adversarial matter involving public interest.
- Held that, fraud of such magnitude could have been detected early had the Respondents authenticated the Aadhaar data and acted diligently.
- Condemned that, the “sad state of affairs” that forced a common citizen to run from pillar to post without redressal.
- Directed that, the GST authorities delete the registration using the Petitioner’s Aadhaar and PAN from the GST portal.
- Held that, it is imperative for UIDAI and UOI to proactively prevent such frauds and issue public guidance on who can use Aadhaar for authentication and suggested that Aadhaar authentication must include photograph comparison per Aadhaar (Authentication) Regulations, 2021.
- Imposed costs on the Respondents for their collective inaction and systemic failure and called for accountability and remarked that future instances must be dealt with swiftly to protect citizens and uphold rule of law.
Our Comments:
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Anil Kumar vs. GST Commissioner, CGST and Excise & Ors [(2023) 73 GSTL 59] held that where a GST registration had been fraudulently obtained in the petitioner’s name, and he admitted to handing over his Aadhaar and PAN to a friend for loan purposes. The court held that such explanations could not be accepted as such and required proper examination by the authorities. The Court accordingly directed that the petition be treated as a representation by the GST authorities and also required the petitioner to disclose the identity of his friend to the police and tax authorities.
This ruling diverges from the present decision of the Bombay High Court, where the Petitioner never handed over documents voluntarily, and the Court found the statutory and enforcement authorities wholly at fault for failing to act on clear evidence of impersonation. In contrast, the Delhi High Court’s approach reflects a degree of contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner, which justified further inquiry. Both rulings, however, converge on the broader principle that identity fraud in GST matters must be investigated thoroughly and resolved swiftly, balancing citizen protection with institutional accountability.
CLICK HERE FOR OFFICIAL JUDGMENT COPY
(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
